JAI SHANKER HAJELA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following question has been referred to us :

(2.) Though we are called upon to answer an abstract question of law, it is necessary to state the material facts giving rise to the question. The appellant was a civil servant; he commenced his service as a Sub-Deputy Inspector of Schools in 1927. In 1948 he was appointed to officiate as a Deputy Inspector. A dispute arose between him and the State over the pay admissible to him as officiating Deputy Inspector and while the dispute was going on lie was transferred from Bahraich to Ghazipur on account of complaints of insolent behaviour and insubordination. He handed over charge at Bahraich but refused to take over charge at Ghazipur so long as the dispute about his pay was not settled. He did take over at Ghazipur but long after the expiry of the period allowed to him as joining time. On account of this absence from duty without leave, insubordination and unsatisfactory work, the State on 15-9-1950 approved of his reversion to his substantive post of Sub Deputy Inspector and transferred him from Ghazipur to Muzaffarnagar. He refused to comply with the orders issued by the Director of Education on 2-12-1950 requiring him to take over as a Sub Deputy Inspector at Muzaffarnagar. On 19-1-1951 the State issued a notification reverting him to his substantive appointment as Sub Deputy Inspector. He was relieved at Ghazipur on 20-12-1950 but did not take over at Muzaffarnagar on 2-4-1951 and, he was called upon to show cause why his services should not be terminated for remaining absent without leave. A formal charge-sheet was served upon him on 30-5-1951 calling upon him to show cause why his services as Sub Deputy Inspector be not terminated on account of unsatisfactory work, disobedience, insubordination and absence from duty without leave. In reply the appellant said that if he was not appointed to work as Deputy Inspector, he might be retired in accordance with his request already made. Accordingly on 6-8-1951 order was issued by the State to the effect that he was retired with effect from 21-12-1950. Then he instituted the suit, giving rise to this appeal, in which he pleaded, inter alia that his reversion from the post of Deputy Inspector to that of Sub Deputy Inspector contravened the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution. The provisions are said to have been contravened in two ways, (1) that the order of reversion was passed by tfie Director of Education, an authority lower than the State which had appointed him as Deputy Inspector and (2) that he was not called upon to show cause against the proposed punishment of reversion.

(3.) The suit was contested by the State which asserted that the order of reversion was passed by the State and that he was not entitled to any notice for showing cause against the reversion.